Bug#472432: DDPO: the Uninstallable information lacks explanation and seems to be wrong/desynched
Package: qa.debian.org Severity: normal Coin, Looking at my DDPO page here : http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&comaint=yes It seems, for example, 'activeldap' is uninstallable in unstable for : alpha arm hurd-i386 m68k sparc The link does not give the reason for this uninstallability. I was pointed to http://edos.debian.net by KiBi, which is perhaps the source of the DDPO check, and looking at the whole 7 last runs, i was unable to find activeldap. So, i wonder which one is wrong. Regards. -- Marc Dequènes (Duck) pgpW0u3k7skuB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#472432: DDPO: the Uninstallable information lacks explanation and seems to be wrong/desynched
Coin,
Ralf Treinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> installable. And that is exactly what edos.debian.net has found. It
> even tells you the reason:
>
> libactiveldap-ruby1.8 (= 0.9.0-2) depends on libgettext-ruby1.8
> {libgettext-ruby1.8 (= 1.90.0-1)} libgettext-ruby1.8 (= 1.90.0-1)
> depends on irb1.8 {irb1.8 (= 1.8.6.114-2)} irb1.8 (= 1.8.6.114-2)
> depends on libreadline-ruby1.8 (>= 1.8.6.114-2) {NOT AVAILABLE}
Eidos was not up-to-date at the time i reported the problem, as i looked
for "activeldap" which is the source package name, but also part of all
the binary packages names.
> It also tells you that it is uninstallable since March, 23.
That's an interresting information when crossed refs with upload dates
and changelog, very nice :-).
> Still, I agree that the information on DDPO lacks an explanation.
Probably some sort of recursive report like "why is X not in testing ?"
would help find the root of the problem.
Thanks for your help, dear keysigner ;-).
--
Marc Dequènes (Duck)
pgpJJ279tNQ2y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bug#281299: maintainer considered as comaint
Package: qa.debian.org Severity: minor Coin, Look in here : http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?package=soya&comaint=yes Since i am maintainer of gnome-panel and gnome-applets, i am considered comaintainer, as the pkg name is in blue. It is not really important, so i forgot many times to report, sorry. Notice i am not listed in the GNOME Team Uploaders as i am not (yet) an official DD (which could have mislead your script). Thanks -- Marc Dequènes (Duck) pgpFtX2edCyTq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#348810: QA Developer summary page broken for duck account
Package: qa.debian.org Severity: important Look at this: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?package=slune&comaint=yes BTW, i'm to feed a bug against b.d.o for a similar problem. This is very annoying to be unable to use our important tools, thus the severity. -- Marc Dequènes (Duck) pgpV3DxZSPGbK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#348810: QA Developer summary page broken for duck account
Coin, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is this a new problem? Maybe it is related to the packages.debian.org > problems. This is a recent problem, but qa.d.o is working for most people, so this is probably unrelated. -- Marc Dequènes (Duck) pgp74qM8p8pmB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#348810: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#348810: QA Developer summary page broken for duck account)
Coin, > Re: Adeodato Sim=F3 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> (For the record, #348859, and as noted there, case-sensivity related. >> Marc uses [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the maintainer field, not [EMAIL PROTECTED] > p.org). > > Fixed in CVS, thanks. Thanks a lot :-) I just discovered the link for packages in incoming. This page really becomes more and more useful (thus absolutly essential). Thanks for your nice work. -- Marc Dequènes (Duck) pgpYtnskFt8NZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#281299: maintainer considered as comaint
Coin, Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > as a by-product of the fix to #348810, this seems also to be fixed. > Could you please check if the listing is correct for your packages > now? I cannot test if this also fixed #281299 exactly as it was reported, as i'm no more the gnome-panel and gnome-applets maintainer. Nevertheless, kwalify has now entered the Ruby Team, with an Uploaders field generated in a similar way as the one for the GNOME Team (the script is derived from the GNOME Team's one), and it behaves correctly. So i guess this bug is fixed. -- Marc Dequènes (Duck) pgp3MFKdpJfv5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#694081: DDPO: maintainer's name is taken from revoked GPG uid
Package: qa.debian.org Severity: normal Coin, Looking at: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=d...@debian.org&comaint=yes or http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=d...@duckcorp.org&comaint=yes I see: Packages overview for The Duck Maintainer: The Duck Maintainer: The Duck The string "The Duck" comes from an *ancient* uid, revoked a long long time ago. Please filter revoked keys in order to have a proper realname, thanks. Regards. -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- Marc Dequènes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/24de0d7b920030f3a4f5cd61e415a...@webmail-rc.duckcorp.org
Bug#694081: DDPO: maintainer's name is taken from revoked GPG uid
Coin, On 2012-11-23 22:03, Bart Martens wrote: I added a workaround. http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=d...@debian.org The solution is to learn carnivore about historical and actual data. That's not for today. :-) Well, at least it is in the todolist now. Your workaround works well, thank you :-). Regards. -- Marc Dequènes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/47fdfc4b4724d09f96182e02f554c...@webmail-rc.duckcorp.org
